Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Do we really need the ama, or is it just like auto insurance...another ripoff?

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.
View Poll Results: Do we really need the AMA???
YEA
82.91%
NAY
17.09%
Voters: 316. You may not vote on this poll

Do we really need the ama, or is it just like auto insurance...another ripoff?

Old 12-22-2014, 09:25 AM
  #326  
Tony G.
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Elmwood Park , IL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I totally agree with you Lars
Yes to AMA.....


TONY GAGO
Old 12-22-2014, 09:27 AM
  #327  
Tony G.
My Feedback: (17)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Elmwood Park , IL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The question is "Do we need..." not "Do we like..." The answere is in my opinion, an unequivocal yes. They do and have done much more than provide insurance. Not going to list that out as it would take volumes, but the organization (which is us by the way), continues to be advocates for the hobby. With any organization they are not going to get it 100% right to 100% of the member's satisfaction. That never happens with any club, organization, or group. Look here, we don't agree already and again we as I said are the AMA.

I'll give one example - would we have gotten our exclusive use 72mhz band if we the AMA hadn't as an organization been there to work with the government bodies to set it aside for us? 72mhz is not critical like it once was, but without it the hobby would not have grown like it did. We as modelers would not have all the options/opportunities we have today. No way that happens unless we as a collective group with a representative leadership body work and were there to do it.

if you are a hunter/gun sportsman, would you be better off without the NRA? If you are a private pilot would you be better off without the AOPA?

Lars




I totally agree with you LARS
Yes to AMA


TONY GAGO
Old 12-22-2014, 10:32 AM
  #328  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
While I hope you're right, I think we're in for some tightening on the definition of hobby flights. And yes, it will continue to evolve if indeed the near misses and reckless operations continue. I maintain the AMA's role at this point is to limit further losses.
However their appears to be a big conflict in the FAA over drones. With this level of internal strife over "commercial use" and the political pressure to allow it, there is probably very little incentive to stir up a political firestorm over model aviation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...98e_story.html
Old 12-22-2014, 11:09 AM
  #329  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
While some may well be hysteria, there's enough reckless operators posting videos to show that there's too many that are not imaginary - and thus my support for FAA regulating. My recommendation: Hobby = no compensation in any form, nothing over 400' AGL, no FPV, no autonomous navigation, no flight in/under class B or C airspace, nothing within 5nm of class D or full size airfields w/o written agreement, no flight in/under military training routes during NOTAM'd operating hours, and nothing over 55lbs.
Hey Navy:
Just because U don't do anything but roundy round bolters don't Condemn others that enjoy what they do. Yes R/C anything should be restricted where commercial aircraft fly Class B C air space but look where commercial aircraft operate in VFR/IFR weather. Look at any approach plate99% of Precession approaches are 3 degrees or more. That's at 5 miles from the touch down point on the runway is 1835' AGL. Out side of the final approach fix all Comericial is kept higher than the FAF even when on a visual approach.non precision approaches are kept even higher 5 miles out. Way out side of the center ring of class B or C airspace commercial aircraft are more than 2500 AGL. There is no reason why RC has to be kept at 400' when outside 5 miles of a Class B or C airspace. In class D airspace all aircraft GA or Commercial are kept at least 1000'agl i.e. Pattern altitude or even higher when on an IFR flight plan.
As for FPV and LOS that if conducted below 400' and in non congested air space and out side of 5 miles from any airport poses no peril to maned aircraft. All flying sites when out side 5 miles or more should be allowed up to 1000' AGL if not 1500'. No FPV should be allowed over congested area's Commercial or recreational.
R/C has been operating this way for 75 years with little or any problems with maned aircraft. In Wisconsin where I fly all summer we fly on an active airport with no problems in the last 34 years we have been there and we operated off a full scale airport for 20 years before that.
Old 12-22-2014, 02:09 PM
  #330  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Hey Navy:
Just because U don't do anything but roundy round bolters don't Condemn others that enjoy what they do. Yes R/C anything should be restricted where commercial aircraft fly Class B C air space but look where commercial aircraft operate in VFR/IFR weather. Look at any approach plate99% of Precession approaches are 3 degrees or more. That's at 5 miles from the touch down point on the runway is 1835' AGL. Out side of the final approach fix all Comericial is kept higher than the FAF even when on a visual approach.non precision approaches are kept even higher 5 miles out. Way out side of the center ring of class B or C airspace commercial aircraft are more than 2500 AGL. There is no reason why RC has to be kept at 400' when outside 5 miles of a Class B or C airspace. In class D airspace all aircraft GA or Commercial are kept at least 1000'agl i.e. Pattern altitude or even higher when on an IFR flight plan.
As for FPV and LOS that if conducted below 400' and in non congested air space and out side of 5 miles from any airport poses no peril to maned aircraft. All flying sites when out side 5 miles or more should be allowed up to 1000' AGL if not 1500'. No FPV should be allowed over congested area's Commercial or recreational.
Congratulations on your math skills, but there is much more to IFR flight operations in/around airports that isn't limited to just 3 degree glide slopes. There's holding patters, missed approach patterns, departure trraffic, etc. There's also VFR traffic.

Let's start with the class B/C. You say there's no reason to limit RC aircraft to 400' AGL because at 5nm/3 degree GS equates to 1800' AGL. Well, where do you think the VFR traffic in that area is flying? Certainly not above the class B. Maybe above the class C. But in many cases it's operating visual flight rules UNDER the IFR traffic. And where would that put them? Yes, about 1300' AGL (to use your example), but realistically 1000' because the small planes are concerned about get flight violations for getting up into the IFR corridor. So if RC is to maintain minimum 500' vertical separation from that traffic, then the RC planes would be at 800. But with general VFR traffic able to operate at 1000' AGL, then 500' lower would be 500 AGL. And interesting how close that is to the 400' AGL that exists in FAR for model aircraft. It's like it was planned. Go figure.

As for your discussion about congested vs. non-congested airspace, who decides that? FAR defines congested, but only with reference to things on the ground. So where exactly is that defined? Or is it in the eye of the beholder? Or do you get to decide what's congested and what isn't? With VFR traffic allowed to operate as low as 1000' AGL, then a 500' vertical separation puts RC planes no higher than 500'. Yes, it's set to 400' to allow additional buffer because FAA knows that RC planes don't have a calibrated altimeter in them that's read by the pilot. Again, it's like it was planned that way. Go figure.

So you see, the 400' AGL isn't arbitrary at all, makes good sense given the existing airspace structure, and preserves the general 500' vertical separation between traffic below 18000'. By the way, any flights over 400' AGL is already in violation of AC 91-57, in place since 9 June 1981, which directs - unambiguously - in section 3c "Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface." If you've been operating above that, as your comments would seem to indicate, then you've been operating in violation of that document. I attached a copy for your convenience - with the appropriate directive language annotated.

[ATTACH]2057040[/IMG]

Oh, FYI -- by OPNAV 3710.7U, which is the regulation governing Navy flight operations "Regardless of weather, IFR flight plans shall be filed and flown whenever practicable as a means of reducing midair collision potential." So we do quite a bit more than "roundy round bolters." We actually spend most of our flight time (in the US) operating IFR.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
91-57.pdf (50.8 KB, 21 views)

Last edited by franklin_m; 12-22-2014 at 03:37 PM.
Old 12-22-2014, 02:47 PM
  #331  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
Here's one for you. Say the FAA steps in a does take over and regulate R/C as a whole. Does the AMA disappear and why would we need them?

Mike
And, in what alternate universe is this going to happen? LOL!
Old 12-22-2014, 03:11 PM
  #332  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket
Here's one for you. Say the FAA steps in a does take over and regulate R/C as a whole. Does the AMA disappear and why would we need them?

Mike
With just a little tiny edit or two, this is my view of the future:
Say the FAA steps in and issues an advisory (e.g., update to AC91-57) for R/C as a whole. Does the CBO disappear and why would we need them?

The answer is yes, though AMA will remain as it was before management latched on to the CBO notion so enthusiastically as a marketing strategy they can't face the fact it is already dead. Nobody needs a CBO and its rules as an alternative to voluntary compliance with good advice.

cj
Old 12-22-2014, 03:51 PM
  #333  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

AMA is small game so far as CBOs. AOPA has around 400,000 members -- and that's just one group. They just don't have the sway in DC to get what they want. From a regulators perspective, they've demonstrated that they can't deliver what would be of value to FAA - self regulation of "drone" operators. So when you combine the two - I agree with CJ - they're on their way out.
Old 12-22-2014, 04:10 PM
  #334  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
AMA is small game so far as CBOs. AOPA has around 400,000 members -- and that's just one group. They just don't have the sway in DC to get what they want. From a regulators perspective, they've demonstrated that they can't deliver what would be of value to FAA - self regulation of "drone" operators. So when you combine the two - I agree with CJ - they're on their way out.
Way out? Notice that in partnership with the FAA?

AMA joins AUVSI and Small UAV Coalition in launching “Know Before You Fly” Campaign

In an effort to promote safe and responsible flying, the AMA, AUVSI, and the Small UAV Coalition, in partnership with the FAA, have launched the “Know Before You Fly” Campaign.


More information, and the official press release announcing the launch of the campaign can be found on the campaign website,http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org/.
WASHINGTON – Leading unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) industry and hobbyist groups, along with the federal government, today launched a new education campaign titled “Know Before You Fly,” which provides prospective operators with the information and guidance they need to fly safely and responsibly. The effort is being spearheaded by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and the Small UAV Coalition in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The ease of acquiring UAS technology has led to a proliferation of unmanned flights, some of which are authorized and some of which are not. When it comes to unauthorized flights, many well-meaning individuals and prospective business operators want to fly and fly safely, but they don’t realize that, just because you can buy a UAS, doesn’t mean you can fly it anywhere, or for any purpose.
“There is a lot of excitement and enthusiasm around UAS, and the technology is becoming the must-have holiday gift,” said Michael Toscano, President and CEO of AUVSI. “The ‘Know Before You Fly’ campaign fills a critical education gap just in time for the holiday season. We want to ensure that all prospective operators have the tools they need to fly safely and responsibly.”
“AMA’s members have been flying model aircraft safely for nearly 80 years, and we want to take this opportunity to share our expertise with people who are new to the technology,” said Bob Brown, President of AMA. “Our 175,000 members are intimately familiar with our safety code, which we take very seriously, but not everyone who buys an unmanned aircraft knows what he or she should and should not do. Flying model aircraft is a fun and educational experience. We want to ensure it’s done as safely as possible.”
“Often people who purchase UAS for recreational use in stores or online are unaware of the existing safety guidelines,” said Michael Drobac of the Small UAV Coalition. “Our hope is that this campaign will make that information more accessible to the legions of flyers taking to the skies, ensuring safety for all aircraft, both manned and unmanned.”
The campaign plans to team up with manufacturers and distributors to inform consumers and businesses about what they need to know before taking to the skies. The campaign includes a website, educational video, point-of-sale materials and a digital and social media campaign to ensure that prospective operators have the information and guidance on what they need to know before they fly a UAS.

“We are proud to be partnering with AUVSI, AMA and the Small UAV Coalition in spreading the word about ways to fly safely and responsibly,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We often say that safety is a shared responsibility. The ‘Know Before You Fly’ campaign allows us to harness the resources and expertise of industry as we strive to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.”


Last edited by bradpaul; 12-22-2014 at 04:13 PM.
Old 12-22-2014, 04:17 PM
  #335  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Know before you fly website:

http://www.knowbeforeyoufly.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5Q9JvBhxM

Last edited by bradpaul; 12-22-2014 at 04:20 PM.
Old 12-22-2014, 04:18 PM
  #336  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Oh, FYI -- by OPNAV 3710.7U, which is the regulation governing Navy flight operations "Regardless of weather, IFR flight plans shall be filed and flown whenever practicable as a means of reducing midair collision potential." So we do quite a bit more than "roundy round bolters." We actually spend most of our flight time (in the US) operating IFR.[/QUOTE]

The AMA has been operating for 75 years just fine no need for any changes Besides
The Roundy Round Bolters were a reference to your RC Flying not your JET jockey stuff.

Besides ATC only guarantees Separation between aircraft that are on an IFR Flight plane have a clearance and are actually in IMC conditions. ATC don't provide a commercial any gauerentee of separation from anything when the Commercial or anything else for that matter, When in VFR Conditions. Unless U are in actual IMC it still see and be seen.

Last edited by HoundDog; 12-22-2014 at 04:20 PM.
Old 12-22-2014, 04:26 PM
  #337  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Come on gimmie a break Just how many 12 year olds that get Quads for Xmas are gona read the instructions
much less the FINE Print? There in Lies the crux of the problem. If they do read it how many do U think will Head the warnings ...
I'll bet less that 10%
Old 12-22-2014, 04:27 PM
  #338  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Oh, FYI -- by OPNAV 3710.7U, which is the regulation governing Navy flight operations "Regardless of weather, IFR flight plans shall be filed and flown whenever practicable as a means of reducing midair collision potential." So we do quite a bit more than "roundy round bolters." We actually spend most of our flight time (in the US) operating IFR.
The AMA has been operating for 75 years just fine no need for any changes...Besides ATC only guarantees Separation between aircraft that are on an IFR Flight plane have a clearance and are actually in IMC conditions. ATC don't provide a commercial any gauerentee [sic] of separation from anything when the Commercial or anything else for that matter, When in VFR Conditions. Unless U are in actual IMC it still see and be seen.[/QUOTE]

You're incorrect about separation. Even in VMC conditions, IFR provides traffic separation from other IFR aircraft AND participating VFR aircraft. FAA recommends VFR aircraft operate at even/odd altitudes +500 as a risk mitigation measure to help provide additional separation from IFR traffic (which operates at even/odd altitudes).
Old 12-22-2014, 04:53 PM
  #339  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
The AMA has been operating for 75 years just fine no need for any changes...Besides ATC only guarantees Separation between aircraft that are on an IFR Flight plane have a clearance and are actually in IMC conditions. ATC don't provide a commercial any gauerentee [sic] of separation from anything when the Commercial or anything else for that matter, When in VFR Conditions. Unless U are in actual IMC it still see and be seen.
You're incorrect about separation. Even in VMC conditions, IFR provides traffic separation from other IFR aircraft AND participating VFR aircraft. FAA recommends VFR ON A Work Load Available Bassis aircraft operate at even/odd altitudes +500 as a risk mitigation measure to help provide additional separation from IFR traffic (which operates at even/odd altitudes).[/QUOTE]

All +500 feet altitudes start at the at the first altitude according to the direction of flight ABOVE 3000' AGL ...
So it's not even a factor.

Did U ever try to Call ORD approach being VFR ,,, U always get call number Squawk xxxx maintain VFR and stay well clear of the (TCA) Class B airspace .... Then when on an IFR clearance and filed with in 35NM of ORD U will get rerouted to JVL RFD EON Flight planned route. Only an extra 75 miles added to your 3 hour flight plan now U are Illegal on reserves.
Or U can accept a Clearance over Lake Michigan Single Engine IFR in the winter time. C-182's don't have a lot of anti / deicing equipment.

Just saying it's been fine for 75 years and if all people are required to fly on the reservation it's not necessary to change anything.
Old 12-22-2014, 05:08 PM
  #340  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
And, in what alternate universe is this going to happen? LOL!
Hang around it's coming sooner than you may think.

Mike
Old 12-22-2014, 05:32 PM
  #341  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
You're incorrect about separation. Even in VMC conditions, IFR provides traffic separation from other IFR aircraft AND participating VFR aircraft. FAA recommends VFR ON A Work Load Available Bassis [sic]...."
Not quite completely correct. IFR traffic receives separation from other IFR traffic and participating VFR traffic. It's the VFR traffic that gets separation services based on workload.

As for the re-routing and such around ORD, that's the unfortunate consequence of flying general aviation. It's just not that easy to route aircraft that are slower at full speed than larger aircraft fly on approach, when you have to make allowances for wake turbulence, and then mix in that many private pilots are just slow on the radio often requiring time consuming repeats and explanations. Not saying that all of them are that way, but based on experience in/around San Diego, LA, Seattle, Vegas, Dulles, DC, etc., it's just too hard.

And lastly, about things working fine for 75 years, what's happened in the past has no bearing on what will happen from this point forward. Before you get too deep in nothing needs to change - interesting that the video you lamented doesn't mention any flight above 400' AGL.

I'll predict that the rule will limit model flight to 400' AGL - it won't be an advisory circular anymore, but rather part of the FAR proper.

Last edited by franklin_m; 12-22-2014 at 05:37 PM.
Old 12-22-2014, 06:27 PM
  #342  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Not quite completely correct. IFR traffic receives separation from other IFR traffic and participating VFR traffic. It's the VFR traffic that gets separation services based on workload.
As for the re-routing and such around ORD, that's the unfortunate consequence of flying general aviation. It's just not that easy to route aircraft that are slower at full speed than larger aircraft fly on approach, when you have to make allowances for wake turbulence, and then mix in that many private pilots are just slow on the radio often requiring time consuming repeats and explanations.

I'll predict that the rule will limit model flight to 400' AGL - it won't be an advisory circular anymore, but rather part of the FAR proper.
it's not necessary ... That route is 60 miles from ORD one time we were coming back from Indiana and they gave us that rout. We were on top a 6000 around RFD I looked SW and saw about 13 airplanes down to around 7000 almost 100 miles out from ORD. of course this was about 6pm ... They didn't do holding patterns any more. else I've seen 3 Columns of planes at NBK OEN JOT from 8000 to FL180 and U could see MKE from From 45 south of ORD Clearest Night I ever saw. But Like I said They don't do Holding unless there is no alternative.
Old 12-22-2014, 09:08 PM
  #343  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tony G.
The question is "Do we need..." not "Do we like..." The answere is in my opinion, an unequivocal yes. They do and have done much more than provide insurance. Not going to list that out as it would take volumes, but the organization (which is us by the way), continues to be advocates for the hobby. With any organization they are not going to get it 100% right to 100% of the member's satisfaction. That never happens with any club, organization, or group. Look here, we don't agree already and again we as I said are the AMA.

I'll give one example - would we have gotten our exclusive use 72mhz band if we the AMA hadn't as an organization been there to work with the government bodies to set it aside for us? 72mhz is not critical like it once was, but without it the hobby would not have grown like it did. We as modelers would not have all the options/opportunities we have today. No way that happens unless we as a collective group with a representative leadership body work and were there to do it.

if you are a hunter/gun sportsman, would you be better off without the NRA? If you are a private pilot would you be better off without the AOPA?

Lars

I totally agree with you LARS
Yes to AMA
TONY GAGO
Well folks the above is very much generally correct. OTOH I think there needs to be a bit of history brought to the attention of the many RC folks that have no idea of some of the things that certain big names in AMA have not always been interested in growing the Academy Of Model Aeronautics, (AMA).
Above is mentioned the 72 MHZ frequencies. The "Frequency Committee" was not very progressive and the AMA folks running AMA were less. The Freq. Chairman was and AFAIK still a great person, yet I do not hear much of him anymore. Look on page 8 of the Dec. 2014 "MA" and check the name by Technical Editor. Now you know.
In late 1981 the frequencies had been approved for AMA use but somewhere in the lower echelons they were being held up. The Freq. Chairman was getting ZERO - Zilch, help from the Executive persons running AMA. At an EC meeting in late '81, an EC DVP, Dist VI, which had the year prior been reelected by WRITE-In vote of the members of that district, stood up and addressed the Ex. Council. This DVP stated that the Freq. Chairman needed help and the EC would provide the chairman with Ten Thousand Dollars cash to assist in his job. No questions to be asked, No receipts required. Any DVP voting against that would have his name well stated in the Dist. VI VP's MA column. Guess what? The vote was 100% FOR! Even the salaried Executive Director, much against such, also voted YES.
TWO WEEKS later we had the frequencies! Understand that getting those freqs. was held up by bureaucratic AMA salaried individuals. Had a certain individual NOT got down and dirty, RC may well have died at that time. The new radio mfgers. were already stopping model aircraft radio production.
Right now you have the AMA salaried staff running the show, and that will continue as long as the modelers themselves quit pissing and moaning about things and clear the EC of those paid execs. that are running the show. Just look at the current MA magazine. Just another magazine advertising manual. Just another play-thing for computer people to get fat on. I can dig up a lot of skeletons, but why? I see so many postings here where the posters think that AMA is the so-much great Community Based Organization. It ain't so! What does it take? About 12,000 voters in this last EC election, YUCK! You bring back the S-Old-St. The worst is that several new bodies were coming on board, while the voting members had the opportunity to make some real new inroads, but you did not rise to the CHORE ! Sad !

So Long "Mama - Suns" !
Old 12-24-2014, 07:42 PM
  #344  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Sad? Yes, continuing the bitter rants about the election loss is the only sadness I see. It's sad to see someone call into question the decision of his peers, that of which I'm sure would have been lauded, had the decision been different. The CHORE was completed, the voters spoke. To second guess them, call into question their credibility and judgement, and lash out at the organization (repeatedly) that one wanted so very badly to be part of reeks of pettiness. The comments about prior activity of the AMA regarding frequency is fair enough, but the rest of the comments are filled with such transparent contempt.

For an organization that is allegedly so poorly run and managed, it sure looked like some folks put a lot of time and effort trying to get elected to a position there (after previously serving in a similar capacity). Continuing to complain about the result, and then thinly alluding to digging up skeletons only further validates the decision that was made. Why can't the decision be respected and handled in a dignified and graceful manner?
Old 12-25-2014, 09:11 PM
  #345  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Sad? Yes, continuing the bitter rants about the election loss is the only sadness I see. It's sad to see someone call into question the decision of his peers, that of which I'm sure would have been lauded, had the decision been different. The CHORE was completed, the voters spoke. To second guess them, call into question their credibility and judgement, and lash out at the organization (repeatedly) that one wanted so very badly to be part of reeks of pettiness. The comments about prior activity of the AMA regarding frequency is fair enough, but the rest of the comments are filled with such transparent contempt.

For an organization that is allegedly so poorly run and managed, it sure looked like some folks put a lot of time and effort trying to get elected to a position there (after previously serving in a similar capacity). Continuing to complain about the result, and then thinly alluding to digging up skeletons only further validates the decision that was made. Why can't the decision be respected and handled in a dignified and graceful manner?
Very good, Mr. porcia 83. Thank you for jumping into my display of the many years that I have worked my "behinder" to try to get the normal AMA member to stop "p and moaning" about the bad stuff in the AMA's hierarchy, but to study AMA History and find out where management is good along with when AMA is horrible and times between.
Folks like you that show ".... Zero years building, 6 years operating, and beginner pilot..." need some information as your experiences certainly represent less than many years of experience and factual knowledge. That in itself is no problem, yet THOSE that fail to take the opportunity to learn from those that have fought strong battles for AMA simply designate their own failure to keep a lamp burning for the AMA's future.
Look through these AMA items and you will find a whole lot more of my attempts to assist the AMA membership to learn where the real problems exist. "....dignified and graceful manner..." HA, HA, sonny when you have done 5% as much for model aviation, local and AMA, as I have in my 79 years, well then I might listen to you, if I can stop laughing.

Last edited by Hossfly; 12-25-2014 at 09:14 PM.
Old 12-25-2014, 10:13 PM
  #346  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default So much for the "so long mama suns"

Your posts of late sure don't seem to be those of someone laughing, quite the opposite actually. More like bitter tears of defeat. You had unfettered access to this site to campaign for months on end, post after post. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, waffling answer after the next. The membership saw exactly what they would get, the same person who had a similar position years ago and walked away from it then if I'm not mistaken.

All your opponent had to so was sit by quietly, it certainly wasn't his race to lose. He won handily, and you lost. Your critique of the AMA is fair enough, it's by no means a perfect organization. You've gone past that since your sound defeat however, calling into question those whose votes you sought, and making other comments in extremely poor taste.

"I can dig up a lot of skeletons, but why? I see so many postings here where the posters think that AMA is the so-much great Community Based Organization. It ain't so! What does it take? About 12,000 voters in this last EC election, YUCK! You bring back the S-Old-St. The worst is that several new bodies were coming on board, while the voting members had the opportunity to make some real new inroads, but you did not rise to the CHORE ! Sad !"


"Unfortunately the vast majority of the membership does NOT deserve any thing more so than what AMA throws at them. What a frigging shame for the most of you, but you well deserve it. You recently had a real chance to get a lot of things accomplished, but reading the ads took over and you just sit here. SO SAD!
"

Those comments are really presumptuous, judgmental, and appear to come from a place of bitterness. Certainly not the conduct of an officer, it's been shameful, imo. Have some respect for the process that you were very much a part of, and the choices made by your peers. I can only imagine how you would be reacting had you won, and your opponent made the same comments.

Gotta laugh at the personal attack, nothing is more desperate (and predictable) than trotting out the old "i've built stuff and been here longer than you" comparison to try to one up the other guy. And "Sonny"...oh man. Yes, we know what you did 30 year ago regarding the frequencies, you've noted it over and over. Completely irrelevant though to the current election, and loss, and they way you've responded to that. Attack for the AMA for what you perceive to be their shortcomings, maybe even suggest a better approach (one better than my way or the highway), and stop already with the attacks on those that didn't vote for you. Trying to compare that to keeping some lamp burning for future members of AMA and sharing knowledge is disingenuous.
Old 12-25-2014, 10:26 PM
  #347  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hossfly
Folks like you that show ".... Zero years building, 6 years operating, and beginner pilot..."
Pulled from a 6 year old profile page. Too funny!
Old 01-01-2015, 10:11 PM
  #348  
Charley
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville, TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yea

cr

Last edited by Charley; 01-01-2015 at 10:14 PM. Reason: Caps
Old 01-02-2015, 10:32 AM
  #349  
Hossfly
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Pulled from a 6 year old profile page. Too funny!
Maybe, "pour..cia 83" you should update your profile and then one can know just what, when, or where your true status really is. OTOH that might not allow you to laugh ! But I will !

For me, when you can remember a .60 Hornet ( maybe a McCoy .65) on ignition, and with no muffler, spitting blue flame on a late evening flight, then I will know that you, "...have been there..." .

Last edited by Hossfly; 01-02-2015 at 10:44 AM.
Old 01-02-2015, 12:02 PM
  #350  
Aquila1954
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Aquila1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: La Vista, NE
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
Come on gimmie a break Just how many 12 year olds that get Quads for Xmas are gona read the instructions
much less the FINE Print? There in Lies the crux of the problem. If they do read it how many do U think will Head the warnings ...
I'll bet less that 10%
Yea Parents to. Have a cousin down around the Kansas City area that bought his 11 year old grandson a helicopter. I don't know what kind but I am betting on one that should be flying indoors. But he is flying it outside and had flown it on the roof a few times already. So, I told him last week. If he does any damage to anybodies property like cars and homes or if he hits someone. The parents are the ones that will get fined or sued. And they should be held responsible for their kids or grand kids. They go out and buy these things not thinking if there is any rules to follow.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.